Argumentation最新文献_第7页

Representing the Structure of a Debate 代表辩论的结构

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-10-27 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09586-2

Maralee Harrell

引用次数: 2

Logic Diagrams as Argument Maps in Eristic Dialectics 逻辑图作为辩证法中的论证映射

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09587-1

Jens Lemanski

引用次数: 1

Primatologists and Philosophers Debate on the Question of the Origin of Morality: A Dialectical Analysis of Philosophical Argumentation Strategies and the Pitfalls of Cross-Disciplinary Disagreement 灵长类学家与哲学家关于道德起源问题的争论——哲学论证策略与跨学科分歧陷阱的辩证分析

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-30 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09585-3

Joaquín Galindo

{"title":"Primatologists and Philosophers Debate on the Question of the Origin of Morality: A Dialectical Analysis of Philosophical Argumentation Strategies and the Pitfalls of Cross-Disciplinary Disagreement","authors":"Joaquín Galindo","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09585-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09585-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper presents a dialogical approach applied to the analysis of argumentative strategies in philosophy and examines the case of the critical comments to the Tanner Lectures given by the Dutch biologist and primatologist, Frans de Waal, at Princeton University in November 2003. The paper is divided into five parts: the first advances the hypothesis that what seem puzzling aspects of philosophical argumentation to scholars in other academic fields are explained by the global role played by a series of arguments within a broader argumentative strategy, e.g. arguing that a question that seems important is not really worthwhile; the second presents five groups of dialectical operations, making use of concepts and tools from the dialectical dialogical approach (WaltonWalton and Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Press, Albany, 1995), Hubert Marraud's Argument dialectic (Marraud, En buena lógica. Una introducción a la teoría de la argumentación, Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, 2020) and from the vast tradition of formal dialectics and dialogical logic. In the remaining three sections, the comments of philosophers Christine M. Korsgaard, Philip Kitcher and Peter Singer to de Waal's Tanner Lectures are analyzed dialectically.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"511 - 540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50527429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions 权威论证方案、类型和关键问题

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-30 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09573-7

Frank Zenker, Shiyang Yu

引用次数: 2

Is Natural Selection in Trouble? When Emotions Run High in a Philosophical Debate 自然选择有问题吗？当哲学辩论中情绪高涨

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-21 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09584-4

Fernando Leal

{"title":"Is Natural Selection in Trouble? When Emotions Run High in a Philosophical Debate","authors":"Fernando Leal","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09584-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09584-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper deals in detail with a fairly recent philosophical debate centered around the ability of the theory of natural selection to account for those phenotypical changes which can be argued to make organisms better adapted to their environments. The philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor started the debate by claiming that natural selection cannot do the job. He follows two main lines of argumentation. One is based on an alleged conceptual defect in the theory, the other on alleged empirical problems in it as well as empirical alternatives to it. Four philosophers and two biologists respond in a way that displays what might easily be described as fallacious. The paper relies on the ideal model of critical discussion of pragma-dialectics to offer a step-by-step analysis of the whole debate, which extended for four issues of the <i>London Review of Books</i>, from October 2007 through January 2008. This pragma-dialectical analysis is carried out by constant reference to the various questions (problems, issues) that arise in the debate. The analysis includes as much detail as possible both in Fodor’s original argument and in the critics’ various comments as well as Fodor’s replies along two rounds of debate. Since a simple negative evaluation in terms of fallacies is out of the question in view of the proved argumentative accomplishments of the participants, an alternative explanation is offered: the undeniable derailments in strategic maneuvering are due to the fact that, whilst ostensibly discussing the theory of natural selection, Fodor’s detractors are worried by an underlying issue, namely, the dangers of discussing the merits and demerits of natural selection as a theory of evolution in a venue as exposed to the general public as the <i>London Review of Books</i>, given the religiously inspired movements that threaten the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"541 - 567"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50504096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Two Types of Refutation in Philosophical Argumentation 哲学论证中的两种反驳

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09583-5

Catarina Dutilh Novaes

{"title":"Two Types of Refutation in Philosophical Argumentation","authors":"Catarina Dutilh Novaes","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09583-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09583-5","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this paper, I highlight the significance of practices of <i>refutation</i> in philosophical inquiry, that is, practices of showing that a claim, person or theory is wrong. I present and contrast two prominent approaches to philosophical refutation: refutation in ancient Greek dialectic (<i>elenchus</i>), in its Socratic variant as described in Plato’s dialogues, and as described in Aristotle’s logical texts; and the practice of providing counterexamples to putative definitions familiar from twentieth century analytic philosophy, focusing on the so-called Gettier problem. Moreover, I discuss Lakatos’ method of proofs and refutations, as it offers insightful observations on the dynamics between arguments, refutations, and counterexamples. Overall, I argue that dialectic, in particular in its Socratic variant, is especially suitable for the philosophical purpose of questioning the obvious, as it invites reflection on one’s own doxastic commitments and on the tensions and inconsistencies within one’s set of beliefs. By contrast, the counterexample-based approach to philosophical refutation can give rise to philosophical theorizing that is overly focused on hairsplitting disputes, thus becoming alienated from the relevant human experiences. Insofar as philosophical inquiry treads the fine line between questioning the obvious while still seeking to say something significant about human experiences, perhaps a certain amount of what Lakatos describes as ‘monster-barring’—a rejection of overly fanciful, artificial putative counterexamples—has its place in philosophical argumentation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"493 - 510"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09583-5.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40473100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Argumentation in Philosophical Controversies 哲学争论中的论证

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-09 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7

Fernando Leal, Hubert Marraud

{"title":"Argumentation in Philosophical Controversies","authors":"Fernando Leal, Hubert Marraud","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Anyone interested in philosophical argumentation should be prepared to study philosophical debates and controversies because it is an intensely dialogical, and even contentious, genre of argumentation. There is hardly any other way to do them justice. This is the reason why the present special issue addresses philosophical argumentation within philosophical debates. Of the six articles in this special issue, one deals with a technical aspect, the diagramming of arguments, another contrasts two moments in philosophical argumentation, Antiquity and the twentieth century, focusing on the use of refutation, and the remaining four analyze particular philosophical controversies. The controversies analyzed differ significantly in their characteristics (time, extension, media, audience,…). Hopefully, this varied sample will illuminate some salient aspects of philosophical argumentation, its representation and variations throughout history. We are fully aware that, given the scarcity of previous studies of philosophical debates from the perspective of argumentation theory, the following specimens of analysis must have several shortcomings. But it is a well-known adage that the hardest part is the beginning. That is what we tried to achieve here, no more, but no less either.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"455 - 479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50467185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

An Unconscious Universal in the Mind is Like an Immaterial Dinner in the Stomach. A Debate on Logical Generalism (1914–1919) 心灵中的无意识世界就像胃中的非物质晚餐。关于逻辑通论的争论（1914–1919）

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-08 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8

Hubert Marraud

{"title":"An Unconscious Universal in the Mind is Like an Immaterial Dinner in the Stomach. A Debate on Logical Generalism (1914–1919)","authors":"Hubert Marraud","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The debate on the a fortiori and the universal that took place between April 1914 and April 1919 in the journal Mind has a double interest for argumentation theorists. First, the discussion is an example of a philosophical polylogue that exhibits the characteristics of a quasi-engaged dialogue (Blair Blair, J. A. (2012 [1998]). “The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument”. Argumentation 12, pp. 325–339. Reprinted in J.A. Blair, Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation, pp. 231–244. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.), confirming Blair’s hypothesis that journal papers and scholarly monographs can be analyzed as turns in non-engaged or quasi-engaged dialogues. It could be said that philosophical argumentation is dialectical but not dialogical. Second, the debate is a discussion in argumentation theory. Generalism in the theory of argument claims that the very possibility of arguing depends on a suitable supply of general rules that specify what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from what kinds of data, while particularism denies this. Although the terminology may be alien, I will also show that the debate on the a fortiori and the universal was a debate on generalism and particularism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"569 - 593"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50464215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Persistent Interlocutor 持久的对话者

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-07 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09578-2

Job de Grefte

引用次数: 2

Bramhall Versus Hobbes: The Rhetoric of Religion vs. the Rhetoric of Philosophy 布拉姆霍尔与霍布斯：宗教修辞与哲学修辞

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6

Shai Fogel

{"title":"Bramhall Versus Hobbes: The Rhetoric of Religion vs. the Rhetoric of Philosophy","authors":"Shai Fogel","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper uses the controversy about liberty between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and Archbishop John Bramhall to illustrate the conflict between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of religion. The first part of the paper introduces initial definitions of these two types of rhetoric. The following three parts deal with three distinct parts of the controversy, as Hobbes and Bramhall define them: to the reader, arguments from scripture, and arguments from reason. The fact that Hobbes and Bramhall themselves divide the arguments into those from scripture and those from reason makes this controversy a good illustration of the conflict between rhetoric of philosophy and rhetoric of religion.</p><p>The rhetorical perspective exposes the epistemological conflict between philosophy and religion that the philosophical discourse often blurs. It is a conflict that concerns the basic attitude of an individual towards the truth as a believer or as a thinker. The rhetoric of philosophy assumes that human understanding defines the truth and therefore gives priority to arguments from reason as they address that understanding. The rhetoric of religion assumes that truth is beyond human understanding and can only be revealed by faith and therefore gives priority to arguments from scripture as they address human faith. The reader may join the opponents in asking whether human liberty is a philosophical issue and therefore subject to arguments from reason or a theological one, subject to arguments from scripture.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"481 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50457428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0